Forum:More than lists
This is a terrible title, so please ignore it. As i've stated in my blog, their are many ways we can top Bricklink and Brickset and Lugnet etc.. One thing we can do is on our set references list and year articles, instead of just listing sets, add a bit of text. For years, we currently list some key things. I would change that in 2009 to this: In 2009 we saw the reintroduction of the Pirates line and also saw another series of Space sets, Space Police III. City continued this year with its new Farm sets and Power Miners was introduced, which was similar to Rock Raiders. The Agents line continued with Agents 2.0 and a new sub-theme of Indiana Jones, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Star Wars celebratred its 10th year with a 10th Anniversary Line and The Clone Wars continued. In BIONICLE, the storyline changed and '''Glatorian and Glatorian Legends were released. The Architecture line, focusing on models of American buildings, was released, as were the LEGO Games line, which proved a successful foray into Board Games. However, 2009 also featured a few themes being discontinued, including Belville, Mars Mission, Batman and Exo-Force As well as celebrating 10 years of Star Wars, LEGO celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the stud and tube brick system. They also changed logo from "Play On" to "It's A New Toy Every Day". 2009 also saw the release of two video games, LEGO Indiana Jones 2: The Adventure Continues and LEGO Rock Band. LEGO Universe was delayed from this year and released in 2010. LEGO Star Wars: The Complete Saga also saw release on PC. LEGO also created a mini-movie to promote Power Miners. For set references, I see no harm with starting with a little summary. Is it mainly used by one type of set? When was it first used? Is it assigned by LEGO or is it like MMMB and fan created? For example: The 9000-9999 reference range is primarily used by Dacta sets, which previously used "range here". The first releases were in "year here". This may seem small but it may make the articles more accessible (especially set references). Thoughts? -----Happy New Year- Kingcjc 14:26, December 30, 2010 (UTC) This seems good.14:37, December 30, 2010 (UTC) :Text for the set references seem okay, but I think we should stick to the way we do the year articles. It's easier to read a list of themes which were introduced and discontinued than reading a text, even if it's bolded. 15:29, December 30, 2010 (UTC) : I oppose any change suggested for set reference pages,The set ref is just that , and i dont think you should be adding any details about sets on these pages, they are simply for set ref not detailing sets. Any details of sets you could put on these reference pages should be placed either in the theme page for the sets, or the set page. All information regarding a said theme or sets should be correlated on the one page, not spread about pages. Gladiatoring 23:26, December 30, 2010 (UTC) Nix what I said earlier. Lists are easiest to read. 23:27, December 30, 2010 (UTC) :While I will say I'm impressed with the idea, I think we should keep it as is. We've already got Lugnet though... :P -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'Can you believe it's only been a year?']] 02:18, December 31, 2010 (UTC)